Hunt v. Chicago Horse & Dummy Railway Co.

Citations

• 121 Ill. 638
• 13 N.E. 176

Syllabus

<p>1. Attorney General—right to file information in restraint of operation of street railways. The Attorney General of the State has the right to-file an information in a court of chancery, to enjoin a horse and dummy railroad company from constructing and using a track in and along a public street of a city, where it has not legally obtained permission so to do from the proper municipal authorities.</p> <p>2. Municipal cobpobations—use of streets for horse or dummy raiU roads—only on petition of adjacent proprietors. The power conferred by the general Incorporation act upon the common councils of cities to grant the use of streets for railway purposes lies dormant, and can not be exercised until the requisite number of lot owners along the street authorize its exercise, by petition. When this is done, the council is invested with power to act,, and not before; and this applies to all railroads, whether operated by horse or steam power.</p> <p>3. So the city council of a city incorporated under the general act for-the incorporation of cities and villages, has not the right or power to grant to a horse or dummy railway company, the use of any of its streets, without a petition of the owners of the land representing more than one-half of the frontage of such streets.</p> <p>4. Paragraph 90, of section 1, of article 5, of the act for the incorporation of cities and villages, prohibiting the grant of the right to lay any railroad tracks in any street to any steam or horse railway company, except upon a petition of the owners of the land representing more than one-half' of the frontage of the street, etc., is a limitation upon the power granted by paragraphs 9, 24 and 25 of the same section.</p> <p>5. The paragraph mentioned is not repealed by “An act in regard to horse- and dummy railroads,” approved March 19, 1874, there being no inconsistency between their provisions.</p> <p>6. Repeal of statutes by implication. Repeals of statutes by implication are not favored by th